I don't mind it. We eventually have to replace our Guards but I want to focus on defense as much as possible this year. So we can survive another year with Boothe, see if Moseley can fill in after another year of development, and focus on RT as the only "hole" on the OL that needs an immediate fix.

This gives our farm guys another year to potentially develop into a starter without being thrown in the fire.

I'd love to draft a Guard, but we have so many holes I don't know if we can. Plus there's always Guard prospects every year, it's not like we HAVE to get this year's crop of Guards.

Here is the play. I managed to take a cell phone pic, email it to myself, and upload it. This is what the play looks like.

BBD,

Yeah man it's very tricky. This, I feel, is a strength, of what I do. I can't imagine having to study and prepare for all these possibilities only to see on game day you studied the wrong stuff. That would be terrible, and there in lies the beauty of it. You just added tendency breakers, naturally, to the system. It keeps it new and fresh without changing the system or concepts in a big radical change.

This concept is what I was trying to explain to you regarding the offense this past season. This is why I didn't like our progress throughout the season. It seemed like people figured our route adjustments out. That's why Cbs were in the WR hip pocket.

In regards to this system, things are new because I am adding new plays or concepts from the SAME formations. So I am running Pistol, Pistol-read/option, QB keepers. Then adding play action, regular running plays, and WCO concepts. That's a lot to prep for! I may add 2 concepts or all of the above. But... now you have to study for them!

It depends for me. There's a lot of defensive players I really like on the board at 19.

I will say this: I think the only DE worth going after in round 1 is Ziggy, and there's no chance he'll be there. Mingo can be a Von Miller type for us, but I don't see us going after him. Not a Werner fan, not a Montgomery fan. Dion Jordan would be a wet dream but there's no way in hell he's gonna be there.

Here is the play. I managed to take a cell phone pic, email it to myself, and upload it. This is what the play looks like.
...

The biggest change that people will start to see is the lack of emphasis on the "over" key for defensive players. Backers have an emphasis on what is commonly referred to as "under to over" keys or reads. They see through the down lineman to the back. As the pistol and zone read concepts gain popularity you'll see a heavier emphasis on under keys, trusting that they'll take you to the ball.

In the diagram you drew up, the changes would most likely be two fives, and two 40s with a true mike.

One of the safeties would have to be rotated down as a dangler so you would be able to have the mike. This forces teams to a single high look - but coordinators are paid the big bucks to change things up and disguise coverages.

The big thing, and this was painfully obvious in the league this past year, was the issue of gap exchange. One of the posters here mentioned something about one or two gap defenses - to not be caught in a guessing game, you really need to be a one gap defense.

In the case of the play above, a true five tech play side would be responsible for squeezing as the tackle releases inside, and then for first threat - the runningback. The backer, now more concerned with his under key should see the dog/down block, or the similar path, and should immediately scrape outside - thus the gap exchange with the end.

The squeeze from the five gives the quarterback a keep read, and should put the exchange linebacker in the quarterback's lap.

This is predicated on a defense making the schematic choice to rally. Rally to pitch, or rally to keep. The pitch here would be obvious - the motioning TE. The offenses answer, if the desire is to have the quarterback keep, is to take the motioning tight end and treat him like a lead blocker and he would be responsible for the gap exchanging backer. A rally from the Mike and secondary is essential. For me, I would always choose to rally. Pitching the football with a player in your face is a recipe for disaster (see St. Louis game), or if they block the exchange with the "pitch man" that forces a bounce and I choose to rally to a guy running east/west.

The biggest change that people will start to see is the lack of emphasis on the "over" key for defensive players. Backers have an emphasis on what is commonly referred to as "under to over" keys or reads. They see through the down lineman to the back. As the pistol and zone read concepts gain popularity you'll see a heavier emphasis on under keys, trusting that they'll take you to the ball.

In the diagram you drew up, the changes would most likely be two fives, and two 40s with a true mike.

One of the safeties would have to be rotated down as a dangler so you would be able to have the mike. This forces teams to a single high look - but coordinators are paid the big bucks to change things up and disguise coverages.

The big thing, and this was painfully obvious in the league this past year, was the issue of gap exchange. One of the posters here mentioned something about one or two gap defenses - to not be caught in a guessing game, you really need to be a one gap defense.

In the case of the play above, a true five tech play side would be responsible for squeezing as the tackle releases inside, and then for first threat - the runningback. The backer, now more concerned with his under key should see the dog/down block, or the similar path, and should immediately scrape outside - thus the gap exchange with the end.

The squeeze from the five gives the quarterback a keep read, and should put the exchange linebacker in the quarterback's lap.

This is predicated on a defense making the schematic choice to rally. Rally to pitch, or rally to keep. The pitch here would be obvious - the motioning TE. The offenses answer, if the desire is to have the quarterback keep, is to take the motioning tight end and treat him like a lead blocker and he would be responsible for the gap exchanging backer. A rally from the Mike and secondary is essential. For me, I would always choose to rally. Pitching the football with a player in your face is a recipe for disaster (see St. Louis game), or if they block the exchange with the "pitch man" that forces a bounce and I choose to rally to a guy running east/west.

Nice for you to stop by. It's good to talk football. Yeah backers, from what my defensive coach buddies, tell me read the triangle in the backfield. After reading the blocking scheme, they are keying for flow in the backfield. Fast Flow, Full Flow, Split flow, divided flow and wrong way flow. I expect those keys to still be the same in theory. You are still going to eye flow in the backfield when the backer looks to the backfield triangle.

So you are talking more of a base 4-3 set in your example? So no nickel defense with 2 backers, but you are describing regular 4-3 base defense and a sky safety instead with a single high. Of course, the DC would have to disguise that like you said.

A sky safety single high, would still be the same concept in attacking it. I would try optioning the Sky and have the QB and pitch man go up with the theory the QB can out run the OLB and Mike. The pitch man maintains pitch depth, but once they hit the 2nd level, I'd have the pitch men haul to block the single high coming in on an angle.

That's what makes this offense is interesting and very dangerous, in my humble option.

Yeah, squeezing is a good option and scrap on top with the backer. At that point you hope the individual OT is talented enough to not allow the DE/DT player to lock on and squeeze the OL into the gap. That's going to come down to scouting the individual players from the 2 different teams.

From an offensive coaches perspective, I would see that on tape, and go from there. Like I was telling BBD, a buddy of mine on here, I may add different tendency breakers. So while a defense studies for all this, I may just run 1 or 2 plays, sticking to the traditional offense. If I choice not to run the option, I may just run a QB keeper well blocked.

That's what makes specifically the niners offense troublesome. They have the potential to run the Pistol, Pistol-Veer, and a well blocked QB keeper. That's not including play action, and other concepts from the traditional set.

This offense is not something I would ever implement or had interest in. I am more of a Air Raid guy, in HS and College. In the Pros, I am a fan of the Air Coryell offense. So this Houston Veer, Pistol-Veer, triple option and so on, I never really had an interest in. I do like how Paul Johnson of GT and Navy ran his triple option. But other than that I never paid too much attention to it.

I do find this new trend interesting and so I wanted to compare it to the redskins version which seems to be less refined, and thus got RG3 hurt.

King, can you elaborate on under/over for the rest of us? You used a lot of terminology that many of us outside of the football world have difficulty understanding. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Yes.

The "under to over" phrase simply refers to any second level defender reading "through" the lineman to the backfield. Under = lineman. Over = backfield.

A common alignment for a linebacker is a 30 - most of you are familiar with the down lineman techniques, they are the same position just second level so you add a zero. So a linebacker in a 30 is a shade outside the guard. If he is under to over, his first read is the guard which should tell him run/pass and direction. Then he snaps his eyes to his over key which would be someone in the backfield (deepest back, fullback, cross key, etc).

My point in my previous post was, there will be greater emphasis on the under keys for second level players.

Hope that helps - if there's anything else I can clear up I would gladly do so, just let me know.

So you are talking more of a base 4-3 set in your example? So no nickel defense with 2 backers, but you are describing regular 4-3 base defense and a sky safety instead with a single high. Of course, the DC would have to disguise that like you said.

Yes, in terms of alignment - not personnel. In the diagram you provided, as DC I would not send out 3 backers against 11 personnel. Down and distance may become a factor, but rarely would that be the case. You can still have that alignment with lighter personnel though.

The other outside backer in this case would be the strong safety. So you could still have the three corners, two safeties, two backers, four down lineman.

Yes, in terms of alignment - not personnel. In the diagram you provided, as DC I would not send out 3 backers against 11 personnel. Down and distance may become a factor, but rarely would that be the case. You can still have that alignment with lighter personnel though.

The other outside backer in this case would be the strong safety. So you could still have the three corners, two safeties, two backers, four down lineman.

I get what you're saying. It would be interesting, especially of you think a backer or the sky safety can cover the TE in the this formation. I would be curious to see if someone like a Harvin or just a speedy WR can play that slot spot that comes "home".

The difficulty arises from the fact that there is a single high. In the Giants system, Eli would get a pre snap read and wait until the defenses aligns before calling the play that can beat it.

If it's a single high case, then I would be inclined to run single high beaters. After all, the offensive formation is basically 4 wide. If my RB is fast enough, as a tendency breaker, I'd be curious to see what look I'd get from the defense, if I flexed out the RB, and went empty. Now you'd have the safety or backer on the TE and one on the RB.

I'd run single high beaters, or clear out with 5 verticals and have a mobile RB, like Colin K. just run with it. If it was the Giants, then Eli wouldn't be running. So if we went 4 wide, we probably run our usually choice and option routes against single high. Probably see a route to take top off, and strike with Cruz.

The crux of this is that the niners pistol offense offers versatility that can cause problems for defenses. The possibilities is one area which I find very interesting.

I get what you're saying. It would be interesting, especially of you think a backer or the sky safety can cover the TE in the this formation. I would be curious to see if someone like a Harvin or just a speedy WR can play that slot spot that comes "home".

Absolutely this is a concern - but no more so than the current predicament defenses are put in with vernon davis, jimmy graham, aaron hernandez, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

The difficulty arises from the fact that there is a single high. In the Giants system, Eli would get a pre snap read and wait until the defenses aligns before calling the play that can beat it.

I don't want to seem difficult or sound like a broken record but, this is a concern every down for a defense - and the good qbs in this league will make you pay regardless if you come out in a single high look or a two high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY+Giants=NYG

If it's a single high case, then I would be inclined to run single high beaters. After all, the offensive formation is basically 4 wide. If my RB is fast enough, as a tendency breaker, I'd be curious to see what look I'd get from the defense, if I flexed out the RB, and went empty. Now you'd have the safety or backer on the TE and one on the RB.

I'd run single high beaters, or clear out with 5 verticals and have a mobile RB, like Colin K. just run with it. If it was the Giants, then Eli wouldn't be running. So if we went 4 wide, we probably run our usually choice and option routes against single high. Probably see a route to take top off, and strike with Cruz.

The crux of this is that the niners pistol offense offers versatility that can cause problems for defenses. The possibilities is one area which I find very interesting.

I agree the personnel and original formation is a 4 wide look. However, you can't run the pistol keeper out of the original set. You must alter the formation, in this case it's a motion, in others, it's a shift, but regardless it's an opportunity for the defense to adjust as well.

Not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but a two high look against the original set is common - the motion to the backfield changes the look and allows for a rotation or bump by the defense.

To me, the greatest advantage is not necessarily the design, it's the personnel. Like you pointed out earlier, Harvin in the slot as opposed to Delanie Walker changes everything. The personnel on defense must respond by getting lighter. Teams the adopt a heavy pistol offense will certainly see additional safeties - tweeners that DC's feel better about in coverage than backers, and will play the run better than additional corners.

I'm with you - certainly a cat and mouse game to be played, and the options for teams that have legitimate running threats that can throw the football with this offense are absolutely dangerous.

I think what makes the 49ers so tough is the offensive line. Typically teams that run these option games have a "finesse" offensive line, that will major in zone blocking. The 49ers will beat you into the ground and then option your butt.

Absolutely this is a concern - but no more so than the current predicament defenses are put in with vernon davis, jimmy graham, aaron hernandez, etc.

I don't want to seem difficult or sound like a broken record but, this is a concern every down for a defense - and the good qbs in this league will make you pay regardless if you come out in a single high look or a two high.

I agree the personnel and original formation is a 4 wide look. However, you can't run the pistol keeper out of the original set. You must alter the formation, in this case it's a motion, in others, it's a shift, but regardless it's an opportunity for the defense to adjust as well.

Not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but a two high look against the original set is common - the motion to the backfield changes the look and allows for a rotation or bump by the defense.

To me, the greatest advantage is not necessarily the design, it's the personnel. Like you pointed out earlier, Harvin in the slot as opposed to Delanie Walker changes everything. The personnel on defense must respond by getting lighter. Teams the adopt a heavy pistol offense will certainly see additional safeties - tweeners that DC's feel better about in coverage than backers, and will play the run better than additional corners.

I'm with you - certainly a cat and mouse game to be played, and the options for teams that have legitimate running threats that can throw the football with this offense are absolutely dangerous.

I think what makes the 49ers so tough is the offensive line. Typically teams that run these option games have a "finesse" offensive line, that will major in zone blocking. The 49ers will beat you into the ground and then option your butt.

Yeah, having top level TEs will be problematic for sure. The Pistol, with the read/option can be done by motion as you mentioned. However, a pre snap read of the defense dictates something else the cat-mouse game begins. They may not run that concept. They may decide to run another passing concept. Maybe have a flash fake, and either keep the back in with a check-release assignment.

The versatility for this formation or from a macro view, the amount of things that can be done is very interesting. It's not my cup of tea in terms of offense, but I do find it interesting to say the least.

I do expect the defense to get lighter like you said. However, the design for the personnel used makes it effective. The design in my opinion, can offer flexibility which can allow more for versatility with concepts being run. This means DCs have to prepare for so much now during the course of the week. If you want a natural tendency breaker, then don't show concepts you showed on tape the week before. Now you put the DC in a bind because the stuff he studied and game planned for may not be shown on sunday. That would be just brutal if the team planned for something that's not shown.

As an offensive coach, I want my opposing counter half to not be prepared by not being efficient in game planning. I believe this type of offense can yield that type of results. A lot comes down to how much information the QB can process. If he can process a lot of information, then that makes that system that much more dangerous.

Now do they utilize this with Colin K? That's up to how much information he can process and the egos of the coaches in allowing a player to run the show. Some coaches feel, calling plays is their job, and so may not allow that flexibility.

I know for our offense, Eli has full range, just like his brother has in his respective offense. If Colin K. gets that then I want to see how much they can do. Would they run the read option, or just run traditional concepts based on that formation. Would the defense still stay single high? Would they have the safety play off man or zone, or even do what Troy P. does and bail to make it a double high look with the LB to cover hook to curl zone?

So, this is a highly interesting time for offenses, and even defenses in finding the right answer. I do like our offense based off he run and shoot. However, with respect to our offense, I do hate the sight adjustments or Wr rules for our specific offense. I find it a pain in the butt, and has led to consistent mistakes which come in the form of Ints. Where Eli throws the ball left, and the WR goes right. So from the viewers perspective, the throw easily goes to the defenders.

I am ready for a new system for our offense. On defense, I have no faith in perry fewell, and that side of the ball.

Overall, I am glad you stopped by. You should stop by more. It makes talking football on the message board that much more fun. So thank you for that! Plus rep for you.

I do expect the defense to get lighter like you said. However, the design for the personnel used makes it effective. The design in my opinion, can offer flexibility which can allow more for versatility with concepts being run. This means DCs have to prepare for so much now during the course of the week. If you want a natural tendency breaker, then don't show concepts you showed on tape the week before. Now you put the DC in a bind because the stuff he studied and game planned for may not be shown on sunday. That would be just brutal if the team planned for something that's not shown.

As an offensive coach, I want my opposing counter half to not be prepared by not being efficient in game planning. I believe this type of offense can yield that type of results. A lot comes down to how much information the QB can process. If he can process a lot of information, then that makes that system that much more dangerous.

Now do they utilize this with Colin K? That's up to how much information he can process and the egos of the coaches in allowing a player to run the show. Some coaches feel, calling plays is their job, and so may not allow that flexibility.

Overall, I am glad you stopped by. You should stop by more. It makes talking football on the message board that much more fun. So thank you for that! Plus rep for you.

You hit it on the head with prep time. Specifically the 49ers with their offensive line, tight end, and option game - that's a lot for the defense to digest in a game week. Greg Roman (our OC) has stated that he plans on having more diversity within the pistol so we can be even less predictable. That's a tall order for anyone to defend.

This is why Delanie Walker was so valuable because he could literally do it all for the 49ers. That will be a tough loss for us.

As far as free reign for Colin - I don't know that JH is ever going to be that kind of head coach. I don't think it's a hinderance, but I don't think he'd ever want to be out of the loop. His days at Stanford, the wristbands were notorious for the amount of plays on them - and from watchign Alex and Colin routinely kill plays at the line i'm guessing they break the huddle with up to 3 plays per call.

Colin's experience at Nevada would probably allow him to call a 49er game relatively easy - four years in the pistol, two years with Roman - he would do just fine. I just don't think he'd ever be asked to.

The plus rep is not necessary - appreciated - but not necessary. Talking football gets the blood flowing. Thanks for being so receptive. If ever you guys are looking at x's and o's i'd love to chime in.

I have been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, but I really like what we have done so far.

We have resigned Beatty and Boothe, plus we have Diehl and Brewer to compete at RT. We have other decent youngsters in place for depth, so we can build on the Oline we had last season (which did a good job of protecting Eli)

It looks like Cruz will have to play on the 1 year RFA tender if he doesn't want to sign the $7m a year deal on the table.

Sure we lost Bennett, but we can get away with solid All round TEs, the front office really likes Robinson, plus we have Pascoe and Myers is solid and has been quite produtive in Oakland, there is plenty of upside as he will be working with a genuine franchise QB and playoff team with plenty of weapons. Louis Murphy adds a genuine vertical threat we didn't have last year.

The defensive front seven needed an overhaul, so we cut Canty, resign a solid run stopper in Rogers and add a good DT in Jenkins to go with Kuhn and Austin. At DE we have lost Osi, but look to be flipping Tuck and JPPs roles, plus move Kiwi DE and have decent youngsters in Tracy, Ojomo and Trattou.
At LB we needed speed and athleticism. I like Dan Connor at MLB, particularly with Herzlich behing him. Williams is set at WLB and Rivers seems to have SLB. Paysigner has ability. Note there is still a spot for a LB in the draft.

The secondary is quite solid as well, with Amukamara, Webster, Ross and Hosley at CB and Rolle, Brown, Hill, Sash and Thomas give us a solid base to work with.

What it does mean is that most of our major holes have been plugged and we can go in a lot of directions in the draft. It is possible we could get some comp picks as well.

I have been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, but I really like what we have done so far.

We have resigned Beatty and Boothe, plus we have Diehl and Brewer to compete at RT. We have other decent youngsters in place for depth, so we can build on the Oline we had last season (which did a good job of protecting Eli)

It looks like Cruz will have to play on the 1 year RFA tender if he doesn't want to sign the $7m a year deal on the table.

Sure we lost Bennett, but we can get away with solid All round TEs, the front office really likes Robinson, plus we have Pascoe and Myers is solid and has been quite produtive in Oakland, there is plenty of upside as he will be working with a genuine franchise QB and playoff team with plenty of weapons. Louis Murphy adds a genuine vertical threat we didn't have last year.

The defensive front seven needed an overhaul, so we cut Canty, resign a solid run stopper in Rogers and add a good DT in Jenkins to go with Kuhn and Austin. At DE we have lost Osi, but look to be flipping Tuck and JPPs roles, plus move Kiwi DE and have decent youngsters in Tracy, Ojomo and Trattou.
At LB we needed speed and athleticism. I like Dan Connor at MLB, particularly with Herzlich behing him. Williams is set at WLB and Rivers seems to have SLB. Paysigner has ability. Note there is still a spot for a LB in the draft.

The secondary is quite solid as well, with Amukamara, Webster, Ross and Hosley at CB and Rolle, Brown, Hill, Sash and Thomas give us a solid base to work with.

What it does mean is that most of our major holes have been plugged and we can go in a lot of directions in the draft. It is possible we could get some comp picks as well.

Comps were handed out already. We received 1 pick. A 7th rounder I believe. Maybe a 6th?